Good evening, everybody.

I'd like to call to order the February 6th, 2025, City of Nashua Planning Board meeting.

Roll call.

Our secretary is not here this evening.

Is someone on staff?

Oh, Larry, you're able to do awesome.

I can do it, I think.

Go right ahead, please.

Thank you.

Mayor Donches.

Mike Peterson.

Bob Bollinger.

Here.

Adam Varley.

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Scott LeClair.

Larry Hirsch here.

Patricia Clee.

Here.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Hirsch.

We have a quorum.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes.

There are two sets of minutes.

The first is from our annual business meeting of January 9th, 2025.

And the second is our regular meeting also of January 9th, 2025.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review those minutes and is willing to make a motion regarding their acceptance or suggest possible modifications?

Mr.

Varley.

As to the regular meeting, I would make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

None opposed.

Any abstentions?

I I am still going to um not abstain.

I did watch the meeting, so I um I am in favor of the minutes.

Certainly.

Thank you, Alderman Clee, for the clarification.

Um motion passes.

Um Mr.

Varley, continue, please.

Mr.

Chair, I would then just make a motion to uh approve the minutes of the annual meeting as written.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Uh is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

All right.

Uh next item on the agenda communications.

Um, Scott or Sam, any additional items since we last heard from you?

Sure, sure.

Uh case 8240226, 11 Michelle Drive.

Uh, we have updated plans.

Uh we have an up abutters correspondence.

And as you can see, I handed out a paper copy of the correct setbacks.

Uh that that came in late today.

So everything should be up to par now.

And all six pages of the plan is electronically loaded.

Okay.

11 Michelle.

Uh 3 Swartz Street.

Uh we uh just updated the staff report a little bit in terms of uh the uh latest uh information.

Uh and A240140-292, Daniel Webster Highway.

Uh we had an engineering letter that uh was uh content with uh that project and I believe uh all three projects have content engineering letters at this point.

Would that be correct, Dan?

Uh that's my recollection.

Okay.

And that's it.

All right, very good.

Thank you, Scott.

All right.

Um next item on the agenda report of chair, committee, and liaison.

Um Ms.

Harper is not here.

Um I don't have anything to add this evening.

Uh any other information from other board members.

No.

All right, seeing none.

Um we'll move along to our cases momentarily.

Um, but before I do, I do want to read the uh planning board procedure.

The plan the procedure of the meeting is as follows.

After the legal notice of each conditional special use permit, site plan or subdivision application is read by the chair.

The board will determine if that application is complete and ready for the board to take jurisdiction.

The public hearing will begin at which time the applicant or representatives will be given time to present an overview and description of their project.

The applicant shall speak to whether or not they agree with recommended staff stipulations.

The board will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant or staff.

The chair will then ask for testimony from the audience.

First, anyone wishing to speak in opposition or with concern to the plan may speak.

Please come forward at the microphone, state your name and address for the record.

This would be the time to ask questions they may have regarding the plan.

Next testimony will come from anyone wishing to speak in favor of the plan.

The applicant will then be allowed a rebuttal period at which time they shall speak to any issues or concerns raised by prior public testimony.

After this is completed, the public hearing will end and the board will resume the public meeting at which time the board will deliberate and vote on the application before us.

The board asks that both sides keep the remarks of the subject at hand and try not to repeat what has already been said.

Above all, the board wants to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony presented and all applicable approval criteria established in the Nashua revised ordinances.

Thank you for your interest and courteous attention.

And if folks wouldn't mind if you could please uh put your phones on vibrate or silent.

Greatly appreciated.

All right.

Moving along.

Um, under old business site plans, we have none.

Under new business, conditional use permits, um, case E25-0005 property located at 290 through 294 Daniel Webster Highway.

Um, has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application and is willing to make a motion for board um acceptance of jurisdiction this evening?

Uh Mr.

Varley.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I would make a motion that having reviewed uh case number 825-0005.

Um finding that it uh is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Varley.

Uh motion by by Mr.

Varley.

Uh, is there a second?

Uh second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Board has jurisdiction.

Um, if there is a member uh of the applicant's team that wishes to come up and present your case, um, please just come right up to the uh the microphone, uh, introduce yourself, and um feel free to provide an overview if you need to speak to any waiver criteria, certainly uh do so.

Uh so my name is Brian Garamillo, and here's uh condition uh do you want me to read the conditional uh permit criteria?

Yes, yeah.

That would be helpful, and then also if you could give us a brief overview of exactly kind of what the business plan is, you know, what's going on physically with with the relocation.

So currently there is a tobacco shop outlet in 292.

292 Daniel Webster uh unit six, and it wants to be moved over two stores along, um, which the cut the client is renovated now and would like to open as soon as possible.

Um the the first uh permit criteria is the building structure or use is specifically authorized by the use matrix 190 uh dollars uh number 15 table 15 to 1 as a conditional use.

Um proposed use aligns with use matrix code 137, which permits the sale of the of tobacco synthetic nicotine or electronic smoking devices with a conditional use of permit.

We meet the ordinances requirement of being over a thousand feet away from any school or youth serving organization, ensuring that our business does not conflict with youth focused institutions.

Additionally, while our location is within a thousand feet of any other vape retailer.

That's number one.

Number two is if completed the development in its proposed location, we'll will comply with all requirements of the article and with specific conditions of standards established in the chapter for the particular building.

Structure or use.

We are committed to complying with all local zoning regulations, building codes, and safety standards.

Number three is the building structure or use will not materially endanger public health or safety.

Our business operations include robust age verification for vape sales, secure product storage, and responsible marketing, all of which prior prioritize public health and safety.

Additionally, by operating as a supplier for the for other vape shops, we support responsible business practices within the community.

Number four is the building structure, the building structure or use will not substantially devalue abduct abutting property.

Our dual focused business model will strengthen the commercial appeal of Daniel Webster Highway without advisedly impacting nearby property values.

Number five is the building structure or use will be compatible with the neighborhood, and with adjoining or abutting uses in the area in which it is to be located.

Daniel Webster Highway is a business commercial a business commercial area supporting diverse businesses and daily traffic volumes between seven seven thousand five hundred and thirty-two thousand vehicles.

This traffic level is comparable to that of Daniel Webster Highway, where the approved location at 292 Daniel Webster Highway demonstrates the area's suitability for varied business models.

Our business integrates integrates seamless seamlessly into the commercial environment, adding to the neighborhood's diversity.

Number six, the building structure or use will not have substantial adverse impact on highway or pedestrian safety.

Our location offers ample parking effective traffic management, ensuring that pedestrian and highway safety will not be compromised.

This allows us to operate smoothly within the existing commercial infrastructure.

Number seven, the building structure or use will not have a substantial adverse impact on the natural and environmental resources of the city.

We are committed to environmentally sustainable practices such as responsible sourcing and waste management in full compliance with Nashua's environmental standards.

Number eight, adequate public utilities and community facilities are available to the to the property to ensure that the proposed use will not necessarily necessitate excessive public expenditures in provided public services.

The property is well supported by current public utilities and infrastructure, meaning our operations will not place any burden on public services.

And number nine, the that the use of on street parking in the downtown zoning districts is consistent or compatible with the existing use on street parking in the area.

This criterion is marked as non-applicable, and as our location is outside the downtown area and provide sufficient off-street parking for both customers and staff.

Those are the nine points or criteria that we have.

Thank you for waiver.

Certainly.

Certainly, go right ahead, please.

The request for waiver from a thousand foot distance requirement from another another like business.

We're writing to respectfully request a waiver from the National Land Use Code S190-15 D6, which stipulates a thousand foot minimum distance between similar retail establishments selling tobacco synthetic nicotine or electronic smoking devices.

Our proposed location is over a thousand feet away from any school or youth serving organization, aligning with the ordinance primary intent to shield youth from such establishment.

However, we acknowledge tobacco barn is located approximately 750 feet from our premises at 292 Daniel Webster Highway, Unit 8, Nashua, New Hampshire.

The presence of this nearby smoke shop highlights a strong market demand in this area as we as we see our so our role as complementary rather than competitive.

Given our focus as a vendor, we aim to supply other vape retailers with quality products rather than focusing on direct customer sales.

This business model minimizes the potential of competition and promotes a cooperative retail environment within the community.

Also, our business tobacco outlet has been established since 2020 at 292 Daniel Webster Unit 8, two years before the code 195 190 Hyphen 15 and our proposal to move to 292 Daniel Webster Unit 6 same plaza.

The business name and owners will remain the same tobacco outlet under Mr.

Sunny Patel as owner.

In light of these condition considerations, we respectfully request that the planning board grant a waiver for the thousand feet distance requirement.

Our unique vendor-based business model is aligned with the National Commercial Landscape, offering a diversified approach that supports local businesses without infringing on community standards.

The waiver number two is waiver for waiver requests for existing conditions on adjacent properties 190279 EE.

This letter serves as a formal request for a waiver concerning the requirement to provide detailed conditions on adjacent properties for our conditional use permit permit application 292 Daniel Webster Highway in Unit A, Nashua New Hampshire.

In 2020, I opened tobacco outlet located at 292 Daniel Webster Highway Unit 8, Nashua New Hampshire 03060.

There is now an opportunity to move the tobacco outlet to Unit 6 within the same plaza.

Given the size and handicap access, I am kindly requesting approval for this considering general legalization within its S 19 High 515 permitted uses issued in 2022.

I would appreciate consideration for this matter at the earliest convenience.

Did you want to take an opportunity to just discuss just uh are you gaining uh any physical um uh area?

Is the store bigger?

Uh there any enhancements to the shop just store will be uh a little bigger than where it is now.

Yeah, then you'll still be bigger.

And yeah, that's it.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um I think that's all I have for the moment, but obviously I'd like to turn it over to the board.

Um questions from from the board at this time.

Uh Alderman Clee, please.

Um so the the question in front of us is that you're going to move the the one that's located at 292 to this new address of which is just down the road.

Placing you closer to the um the other um tobacco vape shop.

Is that correct?

Correct?

That one that won't make difference.

Uh just the Oh I'm sorry if you could just introduce your you're allowed to speak, uh certainly just introduce yourself for the record and uh just speak into the microphone.

It's just two shops of the same plaza, same building, same area.

So may I oh certainly continue?

So you're going to actually have a a second shop.

No, we're gonna close this one.

I'm we're just moving to the bigger shop.

But that's gonna be still the same name, everything is same not the same owner.

It's gonna be exactly the same, it's just moving uh from unit A to unit six.

So within the same may I I'm sorry, same same plaza.

So it's within the same plaza.

Can I show you a picture or then you can have a paper?

Sure.

Okay.

I I can I can see here sorry.

Sorry, I don't that's okay.

How the picture just they're just moving within that that same, so within the same plaza.

Okay.

It's about 40 40 feet or okay.

Thank you.

Maybe that's the same the same name, the same owner.

He's just moving.

Just I I will be honest.

I I I do I I am the author of the legislator of the thousand of the uh the thousand feet, so I do tend to be a little sensitive of when we're trying to open up new vape shops or moving them and so on.

So but if it's just moving the same one, it's already existing, just a few feet.

I can understand.

I'm not trying to hurt any existing businesses.

Okay.

Thank you, Alderman Clee.

Um, other members of the board this time.

Mr.

Hudson, please.

Yeah, I don't have any issue with the proposal.

I just uh I don't know if you've been informed, but we just request that you update the sewer permit for the unit.

Um we just although it doesn't appear there's gonna be any changes to the unit, we like to track who's in there.

Um so you'll just need to go to the engineering department and get an updated sewer permit.

I don't believe that there's no cost for that or anything like that.

Just it's a record keeping thing for us.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um other members of the board.

Okay.

Um thank you, gentlemen.

Uh, I am gonna give uh an opportunity to the public, so let me just uh uh anyone in the audience this evening that wishes um to speak in opposition or with concern to this application.

All right, seeing none.

Uh any member of the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application.

All right.

Seeing none, uh throw it back to the board for one last chance.

No, all right.

Uh thank you, gentlemen, very much.

Uh feel free to take a seat and I'm gonna close the uh the public hearing at this point, and we'll go into deliberation.

Um my general thoughts I think are somewhat aligned with with Alderman Clee.

Um you're physically relocating the same shop 40 feet away.

I I think the intent of the prior legislation isn't necessarily a hundred percent applicable to this particular scenario or as a pre-existing condition.

Um so um uh my that's my general big picture thought.

I I think on the the CUP criteria, I think they've established a pretty good record of why they would be compatible.

Um, as far as the waivers, I I think obviously we talked about the big one with the thousand foot distance.

But anyway, those are my general thoughts, but I'd love to hear from other members of the board.

Or not.

No.

It's okay.

Alderman Glee, go right ahead.

Thank you.

I always say that oftentimes we come with personal biases.

I I have personal bias against vaping it and so on, but but I'm not here to um to vote my personal bias.

It's a business in your business first.

You've been in business.

There's never been anything wrong with your business and so on.

You've met the criteria.

I have nothing that I could say negative about this, so I'm going to vote in favor of this, even though every part of me is screaming, say no, say no, say no.

I couldn't do that to you.

So I will be voting in favor.

Um which is the right thing to do.

So thank you, Alderman Clee.

Um other members of the board.

All right.

Uh there's there's no further discussion.

I think we might be at the point where we'd be uh willing to entertain some motions.

I I think again, just by our our relatively new procedure, we would first need to uh to vote on the uh specific waiver requests and see how that plays out and then move along into the uh the conditional use permit criteria.

Um but is any member of the board at this time willing to make a motion um regarding the requested waivers.

Uh Mr.

Varley, please.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um as to new business A twenty-five-0005.

I would like to make the following motion with respect to the two waivers requested.

Um that motion would be to grant the requested waiver from section 190-279 EE, um waiving the requirement to show existing conditions, and that be with the finding um that strict conformity with the regulation would pose unnecessary hardship um and that specific conditions of the land um or uh site indicate that the waivers as granted will properly carry out the spirit intent of the regulation, and then additionally to grant the waiver requests from section 190-15 D6 to waive the requirement um that uh facilities with the primary use designated with the subscript three be a minimum of a thousand feet away from white classified uses, similarly with the finding that strict conformity with the regulation would pose an unnecessary hardship and that the specific circ circumstances of the site indicate that granting the waiver will still properly carry out the spirit intent of the regulations, all right.

Thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Varley to um to grant the two requested waivers.

Um is there a second?

Uh second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um Mr.

Varley, I imagine you're gonna continue, but one quick question before I do.

Um there are no no conditions listed um but based on on Mr.

Hudson's commentary earlier.

Should we add the building permit filing as uh as a or is that just sewer permit prior to issuance of a CO?

Um sewer permit update prior to issuance of a CO.

Okay, that's acceptable.

Okay.

All right, pardon the interruption, Mr.

Varley.

If you wish to continue, please please do so.

Um yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I again as to new business case number 825-0005.

I would now like to make a motion to uh approve the conditional use permit application.

Um pursuant to section 190-15 um finding that the conditional use permit application meets the approval criteria detailed in section 190-133F, and that will be with one um subsequent condition, that condition being that the applicant will uh obtain a new sewer permit for the uh the new location uh prior to uh certificate of occupancy being issued.

Thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Further discussion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

You're you're all set?

Thank you, gentlemen.

Have a great evening.

All right.

Um next item on the agenda.

New business, uh subdivisions, case A24-026, property located at 11 Michelle Drive.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application and is willing to make a motion for um board, the board accepting jurisdiction.

I guess go back.

Uh Mr.

Hirsch?

Move to uh accept jurisdiction on A24-026.

All right.

Motion by Mr.

Hirsch.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Barley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Um there's a representative of the uh of the applicant or the owner.

Um please feel free to come up to the podium.

Good evening.

My name is Elizabeth Hardigan.

I'm an attorney at Goddessman at Hollis on behalf of the applicant.

Uh Tom D.

D'Angeli, the owner of 11 Michelle Drive.

Uh, the attorney, the engineers of record are Maynard Pocket and could not make it tonight, so you get me instead.

Um this is a fairly easy subdivision in the world of subdivisions, I would say.

It's the largest lot in the neighborhood.

Uh we got a variance for frontage and lot width just along the road.

Other than that, it meets all other regulations.

Um we're asking for three of I would say your standard waivers.

Um, the first being not to show all existing conditions with a thousand feet of the feet of the property lines.

I think that would be showing the whole neighborhood.

Um so that was why most other requirements are shown on the plan, just not outside of the lot.

Um the waiver to not provide for a lighting plan.

There's no lighting changes, etc.

Um, and lastly, not to locate uh underground utilities.

There are existing above ground utilities on this lot, so there's really no point in showing you anything underground.

Um I think we've met all requirements.

Engineers are happy.

Fire department gave us a new address.

I don't know if you as a board have any questions or if there's anything you want to specifically ask, but I like to think that this one's pretty easy.

Um Mr.

Barley, please go right ahead.

Thank you.

Just uh I'm I'm assuming you've seen the the letter from the concern debutters that it's in our packet.

Yes, asking or expressing concern in particular about blasting.

So I'm just wondering if you can speak to have you yet determined whether there's gonna be any blasting and and what that might look like.

So the intent right now is to hand the sub sell it to a builder, so that is not my clients or the applicants um purview as of right now.

Um but as uh as that moves forward, all ordinances or explosives will be all codes will be complied with.

Um the engineer didn't seem to think that there would be a major ledge issue with that would require too much, considering the entire area is already built up.

Um just because there's boulders on the surface doesn't necessarily mean that there's gonna need uh be a need for major blasting.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

All right.

Um I didn't see it noted unless I missed it, but is is there any sidewalk requirement here, Dan?

Fund or in lieu of or it's across the street.

Right.

No.

I didn't specifically evaluate that, but there I guess testimony is there's a sidewalk across the street.

And it's a small two-lot subdivision, so it's a fair question though.

If you have sidewalk across the street, you generally are kind of forgiven.

No.

Okay.

I don't desire a sidewalk there.

Okay, but I think I was just happy to proceed without moving your own.

I was just trying to glad you brought it up.

It's a good question.

Okay.

If if if engineering is okay, and staff seems to be okay, is that something without trying to muddy the water?

Is that something that would still require a waiver or no?

I just confirmed in the code sidewalks need to be provided on at least one side of the street.

Okay.

So we're all set.

Okay.

Understood.

I appreciate the uh the clarification, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Um other members of the board.

All right.

Um seeing none at this time, uh Ms.

Hardy and I'm gonna open it up to the public.

Um any members of the audience that wish to speak in opposition or with concern to this application.

Um Scott or Sam, folks we have on Zoom, are they just applicants representatives, or do we have anyone wishing to that's raising their hand at the moment?

Uh no one on Zoom.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we'll move along.

Uh is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this application?

All right.

Seeing none.

Uh one last chance for the board.

Any any further questions of the applicant?

All right.

Seeing none, uh, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

We'll go into deliberation.

Um Dan, I I I think personally my my biggest um uh thing was making sure engineering was was satisfied.

I know there was a few cleanup items when the application first came through, but if you think they've sort of crossed the T's and dotted the I's um by and large, I I think they I'm I'm satisfied.

So yeah, I think they have.

I mean, the first uh first submission we had was missing some information.

We wanted them to add some contours and things to kind of prove out that this was a buildable lot, at least not knowing what's underground exactly, but at least uh that it could be graded out accordingly.

So that all that information has been added to the plan.

We thank them for that.

Um so we we have issued uh a note that we're satisfied with the plan and support a proceeding.

All right.

Um the the only other thing I'll I'll add, um it would uh uh appear as though the waivers are are not tremendously adverse.

Uh obviously the thousand foot one is one we see pretty regularly.

Um I know in that area, just given the age of the subdivision, um the utility locations are above ground.

Um don't have any strong opinions one way or the other on the lighting plan, but I I didn't know if the board had any further thoughts on the specific waivers that were requested.

All right.

I mean, I would I would say they're none of them are particularly unique or troubling from my perspective.

So further further commentary or or input from the board, Mr.

Varley, please.

I I guess the I just just briefly just to add for the record, I know the applicant touched on it in my res the response to my question, but just because it was so explicitly raised by a bunch of different abutters.

I just wanted to note that obviously whoever ends up with ownership of the property for purposes of developing it, is gonna have to go through the standard regulatory process before they engage in any blasting.

There's you know city ordinances that pose I think relatively strict standards and before you can go and and do any blasting.

So just for purposes of the record, to the extent that any of the any of the abutters end up you know reviewing the minutes of the proceedings for tonight just to put that out there so they understand that there's a process that the applicant or that the developer would have to go through before they can engage in any blasting.

Mr.

Varley, um especially given the overall condition of the neighborhood, you know, proximity of homes and such.

Uh obviously you know there's a whole separate procedure that would go into that um subsequent to this, but uh your your comments are duly noted and and the letter was certainly recognized and and absorbed by the board on that topic.

Um anything else at this time right um if there's nothing else um would any member of the board be willing to um consider making a motion first with respect to the uh the granting of the three waivers that were requested.

Um Mr.

Barley?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Subdivision uh to grant the waivers requested, specifically uh to grant the waiver from section 190-282B9, uh requiring showing of conditions within the thousand feet of the property boundaries on the subdivision plan uh finding that strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship and the specific circumstances of the of the site or land uh would allow for uh properly carrying out the spirit intent of the regulations while granting the waiver second from section 190-275A uh otherwise requiring provision of a lighting plan again, finding the strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship, and that due to the specific circumstances or conditions of the land, granting the waiver will allow for carrying out the spirit intent of the regulations, and then third from section 190-221C uh waiving the requirement to provide underground utilities, uh once again finding that strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship, and that the specific uh circumstances or conditions of the land indicate that granting the waiver will properly carry out the spirit intent of the regulations in this regard, specifically noting that um this is an existing settled neighborhood with all overhead utilities currently all right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Um second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um Mr.

Barley, would you like to continue the thought?

Sure.

So I would now make a motion as the new business A twenty four-026.

Um granting the requested subdivision approval, and that motion will be granted finding that the plan meets the criteria outlined in NRR section 190-138G with um with 13 uh conditions subsequent, all as described in the staff report.

All right, there is a motion by Mr.

Varley um to approve.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Uh any further discussion.

Uh actually I I I have one.

Are are the dates on the engineering letter correct?

Is there anything more recent than I think it was the 20th, uh the 30th, rather?

The 30th is referenced in condition B.

Oh no, but is is that the most recent letter?

There's been nothing recently okay.

Understood.

Got it.

All right.

That was the only discussion I had.

Um so that motion by Mr.

Barley is still out there with a second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Um there's no further discussion.

Um all those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Uh next item on the agenda.

Uh also under new business subdivisions.

Case A24-0227, uh, property located at 3 Swart Terrace.

And Scott and Sam, it's my understanding.

We're we're gonna have a zoom chime in for the presentation this evening, or is that I actually don't believe so, no.

Oh, not anymore.

Okay.

Very good.

I'm sorry, go right ahead.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Earl Blasch Ford from Hainer Swanson representing the applicant.

Um did you did I miss here?

Did you say Swartz Terrace?

It's actually three Schwartz Street.

Street Ms.

Oh my goodness.

My apologies.

I misspoke.

It is Swartz Street, and I I had terrace on my mind.

Property located at three swart streets.

It's it starts immediately on the other side of uh.

I know I'm just I'm getting my did we oh we did not accept that jurisdiction.

We did not, I'm sorry.

I'm jumping ahead.

I'm all over the place tonight.

Right.

I apologize.

One moment, Mr.

Blatchford.

Um is any member of the board um read the application is willing to make a motion regarding board acceptance.

Uh Mr.

Hirsch?

Oh move to uh take jurisdiction in case A24-027.

All right.

Is there a second?

Um Alderman Clee, second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

We have jurisdiction after several several major errors.

The floor is now yours.

So please go right ahead.

Thank you.

Again, Earl Blatch Ford from Hainer Swanson uh representing uh the applicant uh uh and owner of the Tease Family Revole Trust.

Um they were unable to attend this evening because of uh some family commitment.

Um the um purpose of the application uh we're seeking a two lot subdivision uh of the um existing uh residential lot at Three Conant Road, uh which the uh Tees family um recently purchased this property abuts their uh residential property which is located around the corner at 93 Concord Street, uh which was a big um motivator from them to purchase this property.

Um just very quickly the lot information uh it's identifying as uh map 48 uh lot 59.

Uh it's 1.365 acres and it's located uh at the corners of Concord Street and Swartz Street and Swartz Street and Berkeley Street in Ward 3 and has frontage uh on all three streets.

Uh it's zoned RA Urban Residence Um, which requires uh minimum lot size of 7500 square feet.

Uh the uh all of the abutters are single family residences uh on all sides.

Um existing utilities in Swartz Street, uh municipal sewer, Penetruck water, uh natural gas and overhead utilities, uh electric uh telephone uh cable.

Um the existing site characteristics um uh three Schwartz Street has uh one existing one um uh uh single family house uh with full basement and a detached garage, approximately uh a hundred-year-old um residential structure.

Uh driveway access egress uh is from Berkeley Street.

Uh there's actually two curb cuts close by because it's a long U-shaped driveway, which goes back to uh uh the existing um carriage house garage uh detached garage.

Um the existing house uh which is closer to the corner of Swartz Street and Berkeley Street uh is situated in a fairly level uh topographic portion of the site, and then there's a more wooded um uh uh portion of the site uh all along the Concord Street frontage, um, which provides a nice buffer from the busier street.

Um as I said, uh the proposal is for one lot into two.

Um the existing house is to remain on uh new lot 59.

Um lot 334.

Um there's no no intention uh to build on that any time soon, but we did provide a site grading plan just to prove that um the lot can support uh a new house.

Um but uh the owner's intent is to really uh maintain it as a green space adjacent to the existing residence and use it as as you know a an extension to their existing property um for them and their their kids to be able to enjoy.

Um the as part of the uh site grading plan uh we um did a drainage analysis.

We're providing a leaching catch basin as is required to basically uh and we've graded the lot uh so that it'll capture the roof, the driveway, and most of the yard area.

And we've done an analysis to show that uh the way this is designed, uh there won't be any um any impacts to any neighbors if this lot is is developed in a similar fashion.

Um but again that isn't the intention uh at this time.

Um we did go to the zoning board for a couple of um it's a little unusual because the the way it's subdivided uh the um applicant wanted to kind of keep as much of the green space um while still providing a substantial uh lot that to go with the existing residents.

That lot new lot 59's almost three times what the uh zoning requires, and then the remainder is considerably more than that.

Um it the existing garage and a and a small shed end up on the new lot 334 and won't be used by the existing residents.

Uh and of course, right now everything is under single ownership.

So at such time as they might sell the uh existing house, then they would need to provide uh if if the new owner doesn't want to put in a uh a driveway off Swart Street, then they'll provide a uh an easement to utilize the access from uh uh Berkeley Street to provide for the driveway which does cross onto that lot which they could use to access.

So that's something that would have to be worked out at that time.

But um uh we are in the process of preparing an agreement to convey easement so that it's uh it's on the record that uh easement would be required if access from Berkeley Street uh uh is the way that they want to go.

Um so and uh because of the lot configuration uh we did need a uh minor use variance because the garage ends up being uh which would normally be an accessory structure, ends up being a principal structure on the new lot.

Um so we um obtained a use variance for that, and there's also because of the same situation, there's a minor um building setback encroachment of a few feet uh which required a special exception, which we also received.

Other than that, the um the plan uh is uh conforming with zoning.

Um we um have addressed all of uh engineering departments comments uh and we've addressed uh all planning comments except as noted on the um staff report and the conditions of approval.

Um we've got three waivers that we've requested which are um detailed in the request letter and which was uh just revised uh within the past week to add a third waiver.

And just very briefly, the three waivers are uh one from section 190 uh-282 B9 uh to waive the requirement for the existing uh conditions and topo within a thousand feet of the site.

Uh the second request uh is to from section 190-122 to allow overhead uh electric services to uh the proposed um new house if it should ever be developed uh because that is the predominant most of the uh surrounding uh residents are are uh have overhead uh electric and communications and is the standard in this immediate part of the neighborhood.

And the third request from Section 190-275A uh request for a site lighting plan.

Uh and the the letter uh details that further.

I can get into the letter if you'd like.

Uh but those are the three um waivers requested.

Um those are kind of all the pertinent facts.

Uh be happy to answer any questions uh that the board or the audience might have.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Um I have none at this time, but uh other members of the board, Alderman Clee, please.

Um thanks to Mike.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you so much.

Um the easement and the and the driveway.

I I understand that currently it's under one ownership and so on.

But that does kind of confuse me a little bit.

So the curb cut for the for the driveway is obviously on Berkeley Street.

Is there only one curb cut right now to that to that property for the driveway?

Yeah, I mean it's operate, you know, it's a single property, which we're subdividing, so the way it's being subdivided kind of changes the historical function, but of course the house right now is unoccupied.

So really the only thing that would trigger any changes would be for that lot to be sold.

And then as part of as part of the sale, they'll have to negotiate whether they want to use the the uh the existing driveway for access or whether they'll do something something different.

And so it's kind of undetermined, but um the um the the Tease family are are definitely willing to provide um any you know unnecessary easement for access if but it it's all kind of subject to negotiation future negotiation uh when a buyer comes along.

And and maybe maybe this is not a question to be asked now, and if that's the case, I could I can ask it at a later time.

Go ahead and um but I guess I guess my can my concern is and I understand you say it can be at a later time.

Um but because this is the historic district and so on, I'm concerned as to whether or not you could do a curb cut or something of that nature on Swartz Street or another curb cut onto Berkeley.

Um or so what are the the rules and so on?

So if we did do this subdivision and suddenly now you've got this just one curb cut, and and I understand you do it easement, this would become a a single opening for two different properties and but any anything that happens on the new lot in the way of building or whatnot would have to go to the historic district and I guess I understand that.

Yeah, so but there's nothing proposed at this time, so there's but yeah, that it is within the historic district, so they do have they do have oversight of uh you know improvements that go in there.

Uh to clarify a little further, um regardless of its uh presence in the historic district, the driveway standards would still apply as they do anywhere else where you're allowed 24 feet of curb cut that can be spread out over multiple driveways or just one.

Um obviously this kind of a a loop driveway right now, um, which is probably right around with with two throats equaling 24 feet.

Um so again, should the new lot be developed, should the existing structure be sold and a new driveway configuration negotiated.

Any future curb cut, there'd be a driveway permit through DPW, those regs come into play.

Um driveways do not trigger building permits, therefore they do not trigger historic district commission review.

Just one more follow-up.

I I guess my my concern is thinking forward.

I would not want to approve something here that later down the road.

Um if they turn around and said, well, this we don't want to say yes to this because it doesn't meet that criteria of the 24 feet or something like that, but we have to because to say no to them creates a hardest chip and they can't build on it.

That's the only thing I'm thinking ahead.

That's all I'm saying.

The 24 feet would still apply regardless if they have to come back to the planning board or not.

As long as they no one can cry hardship for the future if we're not we're not setting that up then.

That's all I'm saying.

Okay, that's all I'm asking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Barley, please.

Sorry to beat this dead horse, but just one just one quick question in terms of the overall subdivision.

Is would it have been possible to subdivide in a way that did the lots were conforming with you know the garage and other accessory components being on the one lot, or would that have made the second lot not a buildable lot, or was this just a preference of the applicant?

It was a preference of the applicant.

Okay and and the zoning board was agreeable to uh the the minor again, it was a pretty minor use variance, kind of a very unusual one, actually.

Yep, and then a very minor special exception for encroachment.

Kind of an unusual situation, but yeah.

No, there's I mean the lots are as I previously said, both lots are well oversized for the zoning, so um it was just the applicant's preference.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um other members of the board.

Oh, Dan, please.

Yeah, I just I want to note that directly across the street, there's a driveway that's for the property across the street.

So the driveway proposed and that proposed law is not out of character with the area.

So I don't I don't understand unless that driveway, unless the property across the street is not in the historic district, I don't know where the boundary is exactly, but seems like there's a precedent for it would be allowable.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Hudson.

Other questions from the board at this time.

All right.

Seeing none.

Sir, are you here to speak to this application?

All right.

Uh if uh you're here to speak in opposition or with concern, please feel free to step up to the podium.

Just identify yourself for the record, please.

My name is Dan Richardson.

I live at 70 Berkeley Street.

Um greetings to those who are qualified by virtue of your certifications and planning and building.

Um I come not really up in opposition, I come uh with questions.

Because I'm not very well informed in this sort of thing.

Um right up front is that in the historic district, there is not one other building that presents its side to Concord Street.

All of the buildings on Concord Street face Concord Street in the historic district.

Uh so uh I looked at this plan tonight, I hadn't really prepared, and I see that it's facing Swartz Street.

And that that seems a little bit bizarre to me.

Uh I heard that this is sort of what a bogey, uh uh not not a real plan for a house, just sort of like a placeholder or something.

Um is that correct?

Uh that was the testimony of the applicant, and he'll be the one that has to address that, but I believe that was his prior testimony, but obviously he'll have an opportunity to respond to that.

So okay, okay.

Um so um, yeah, that's that's what I'd like to find out is uh if that's normal for I mean it's not normal for for uh the orientation of this building uh to be like it is like it's presented.

Um the other thing is um the overhead service uh which the prior speaker mentioned is not exactly correct.

Uh my my own property and others in the area have underground service.

Uh so which is uh much much more beneficial actually when it comes to uh snowstorms like we've had.

Um I wanted to ask about the adequacy of the drawings that were in the package, uh if they were sufficiently complete to actually pass the planning board uh and get uh a permission to build in accordance with the drawings that are presented again.

Um you're certainly welcome to use this forum to voice your questions, but the applicant is gonna have to address them.

We didn't prepare the technical documentation, so it's incumbent upon the applicant to prove that he met the burden of providing qualified drawings.

So Mr.

Chair, if I could just speak to that.

I mean, we did make a determination that the application that was presented to us was complete, right?

That was complete for the lot line.

It's not a lot, it's a subdivision.

For the subdivision, right, which includes the drawings of the house and right, but it's a it's a subdivision, it's not a site plan.

So yes, we do have the applicant preparing a hypothetical plan showing how a house could be situated that addresses various engineering issues, but it's not it doesn't compel the applicant to build a house a lot, for example.

I see.

Um also I just I did want to note directly across the street, it looks like a two Swartz Street.

It is the same orientation that's presented in this plan, it is uh fronting on Swartz Street, but it has a curb cup on curb cut, a side curb cut onto Concord Street, just for your reference.

As you previously noted, the uh property 4834 is in the historic district.

Whereas the property you're referring to is not.

Right.

I'm just I'm just just for your reference.

Okay.

You can see that that's it was directly across the street.

Okay.

Um the other thing is uh if you'd be so kind to talk about um if the division between 4859 and 4833 was extended to the other side to actually uh divide it into two different lots, if that uh bizarre piece that's abutting Berkeley Street, if that would be sufficient to build on I can't answer that question because that's not the application before us this evening, so I I honestly don't know.

Okay.

That's fine.

Uh I'm just asking questions.

I don't know.

But but just to be clear, if if it's not as if the applicant could subsequently subdivide without coming back to this board and seeking an additional approval.

So there would have to be an additional approval.

Okay.

Okay.

And so I was looking at uh the lot line placement, and um I question my mind was it was it sufficiently um sufficient amount of area to actually build a garage in the uh the corner pocket of that uh lot where the existing house is at.

Um would that be just like a question for the future for whoever have buys it?

Uh yeah, I'm not I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but well, give it given the um for the uh 4859, uh given the setback, would that area be sufficient to build a garage?

Yeah, again, I'm not sure exactly what area, but but any garage that were to be built would have to conform with all the zoning requirements, including setbacks.

I see.

Okay.

Well, those are my questions, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Um there weren't anyone in the audience appears not to speak in favor of this.

Uh Sam, is there anyone else on Zoom with a hand raised on this one?

Uh no at this moment, but it does appear that the applicant himself is on Zoom, I think, just sort of monitor.

But if he'd like to would like to speak, he's certainly welcome to raise his hand.

I'm content to have Mr.

Blashford, if that's okay with him and his client come up and try to address those questions.

So thank you.

Earl Blatchford from Hainer Swanson.

Just uh a couple of the uh items.

Uh as Mr.

Varley uh correctly stated, what we're showing on the plan, I mean this plan is strictly for a subdivision.

Um so basically just dividing the land.

Uh no structures are proposed at this time, and what we show on the plan is just a hypothetical placeholder.

Any actual building that would be proposed in the future would have to go through a building permit process.

Um, and that would presumably trigger the historic district review.

So at this time there's there's nothing, and I'm not sure about the point he made.

We thought from a planning point of view it made sense to have the house oriented on the quiet side street rather than the busier main road and leave a nice wooded buffer to the busier road.

Made sense to us, but again, it's hypothetical.

Um and then the um sorry, I I the other point I want to speak to uh kind of slipped my mind.

Uh garage being on 5900.

Thanks, Sam.

So in the uh in configuring the lot, we did consider the possibility of a an attached garage, a two-stall, basically 24-foot wide attached garage on the west side of the existing house as a as a possibility.

So we located we located that lot line 35 feet from uh the existing edge of the house, so that you've got you could do 24 feet and uh 10 feet, you know, the 10-foot setback, so you got a foot to spare.

So yeah, we took that into account, and it may never happen, but uh the way we looked at it, there's two ways it could go.

You could either have a new driveway off Swart Street, or you could provide that access easement and come in and have the doors kind of oriented um facing the back.

But we did take it in account as far as the lot configuration.

So beyond that, it's all future considerations.

Those are the only two things I think that needed needed to be clarified.

All right, thank you.

Uh other questions from the board.

All right.

Um at this point, I'm gonna close the public hearing, um, begin our public meeting.

Um begin our public meeting.

Um a little unusual just from the breakup and but um uh the waiver requests are something we've seen almost analogous to the uh prior application.

Um but uh other thoughts from members of the board on this application.

Uh unders understanding the potential um you know ramifications of being in the historic district.

I'm sure those are things that will come up if and when a building permit is ever filed.

Um, but that's not the issue presently before us tonight.

It's just the subdivision of land.

Uh Alderman Clee, please.

Yeah.

Oh, Adam Mike, no second.

As I stated, I I don't have any any issues with this subdivision.

I I think it's it's fine.

And um my um my only concern is is is always is that we just don't set up a precedent that we are we're creating uh um uh a future hardship where um we we've seen in the past where someone has a small subdivision or something like that, and and then later on says, Well, there's nothing I can do with this land, I can't do this or I can't do that or something.

But as long as there's gonna be able to either have an easement of being able to share this or have another sub uh curb cut or something like that.

I don't have I don't see any issue.

Um I don't see any issue with this.

Um because I'm always looking to the future.

I understand that one person owns all but technically own all three pieces of this of this property, but I have to look to the future that someday that may not be the case.

So as long as we're not setting up anything for a future hardship, um, I don't have any problems with it.

Thank you, Alderman Clee.

Um discussion from the board.

All right.

Um seeing none.

Um we at the point where any member of the board would be willing to make a motion with respect to the waiver requests.

Uh Mr.

Barley.

Uh sure, Mr.

Chair.

I would make a motion as to new business 824-027.

Um division plan with respect to the waiver requests.

Um, to grant the requested waiver from section 190-282B9 requiring showing existing conditions within the thousand feet of the property, finding that strict conformity would pose the unnecessary hardship and the specific circumstances or conditions of the land indicate the granting of the labor waiver will still allow for carrying out the spirit intent of the regulation.

Um granting the requested waiver from section 190-221 to re to locate all utilities underground, finding the strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship, and the specific circumstances or conditions of the land uh will allow for granting the waiver and still carrying out the spirit intent of the regulation, noting in that regard that this is again existing settled neighborhood with all uh overhead utilities currently, and then finally uh granting the requested waiver from one section section 190-275A uh for the requirement to provide a lighting plan.

Once again, finding the strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship, and that the specific circumstances or conditions of the land will allow for granting the waiver while still carrying out the spirit and the regulations.

Right.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Varley with regard to granting of the waivers.

Is there a second?

Uh second, Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um Mr.

Varley, would you like to continue?

So uh again, I would like to make a motion as to new business A24-027 subdivision, and this would be a motion to grant the uh subdivision approval, finding that the plan meets the requirements set forth in section uh NRO section 190-138G, subject to uh 12 subsequent conditions, all as written in the staff report.

All right.

There is a motion by Mr.

Barley with uh except uh uh is there a second?

Pardon me.

Uh second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh eight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, uh, other business review of tentative agenda to determine developments of regional impact.

Uh is many member of the board had an opportunity to review the uh the project list and is willing to make a motion.

Mr.

Hudson.

Having uh reviewed the ten of agenda, Mr.

Chair, I find no projects or regional significance or impact.

And would move the board find the same.

All right, motion by Mr.

Hudson regarding no projects of uh regional impact.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um I don't see anything else there, Sam.

Do you have anything else to add at this time?

All right, I think we'd be looking for a motion to adjourn.

Motion by Alderman Clee.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

And we are adjourned at 811.